The Experiment that finally convinced me AGW is for real

[CrusaderFrank]

For years now I've been asking for an experiment demonstrating that CO2 acts as the AGWCult theorizes.

Though the number of climactic changes attributable to CO2 has grown almost exponentially through the years, the one experiment that brought it all home was to show how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will simultaneously raise temperature (they say 2-8 degrees, I'm happy with 1) and also lower ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Supposedly it's been shown millions (or billions) of times and that's a big mea culpa on my part.

Show me the experiment and you'll have convinced me

Go!

 

[TheOldSchool]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

 

[ScienceRocks]

I can't show you 100ppm experiment as that kind hasn't been done.

 

[Crick]

For years now I've been asking for an experiment demonstrating that CO2 acts as the AGWCult theorizes.

Though the number of climactic changes attributable to CO2 has grown almost exponentially through the years, the one experiment that brought it all home was to show how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will simultaneously raise temperature (they say 2-8 degrees, I'm happy with 1) and also lower ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Supposedly it's been shown millions (or billions) of times and that's a big mea culpa on my part.

Show me the experiment and you'll have convinced me

Go!

Supposedly you're a rational human being who could be expected to operate a search engine all on your little lonesome.

Convince me.

Go!

 

[daveman]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

Crowdsourced crap science is still crap science.

 

[daveman]

For years now I've been asking for an experiment demonstrating that CO2 acts as the AGWCult theorizes.

Though the number of climactic changes attributable to CO2 has grown almost exponentially through the years, the one experiment that brought it all home was to show how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will simultaneously raise temperature (they say 2-8 degrees, I'm happy with 1) and also lower ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Supposedly it's been shown millions (or billions) of times and that's a big mea culpa on my part.

Show me the experiment and you'll have convinced me

Go!

Supposedly you're a rational human being who could be expected to operate a search engine all on your little lonesome.

Convince me.

Go!

Odd...Google doesn't turn up any such experiment.

 

[TheOldSchool]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

Crowdsourced crap science is still crap science.

Can you find an experiment that proves that CO2 does not cause any warming?

All hypothesis and observations show a link between warming and CO2.

Can you prove that CO2 has no involvement whatsoever in warming?

 

[daveman]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

Crowdsourced crap science is still crap science.

Can you find an experiment that proves that CO2 does not cause any warming?

All hypothesis and observations show a link between warming and CO2.

Can you prove that CO2 has no involvement whatsoever in warming?

Wow. You know nothing about science, do you?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Crowdsourced crap science is still crap science.

Can you find an experiment that proves that CO2 does not cause any warming?

All hypothesis and observations show a link between warming and CO2.

Can you prove that CO2 has no involvement whatsoever in warming?

Wow. You know nothing about science, do you?

Ya bro. Science is gay man.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

You didn't bother reading the experiment before posting, correct?

"Thousands of you took part in the world’s largest climate modelling experiment. Each person downloaded a computer model that used spare processing power to predict future climate."

Oops

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can't show you 100ppm experiment as that kind hasn't been done.

OK so what can you show?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For years now I've been asking for an experiment demonstrating that CO2 acts as the AGWCult theorizes.

Though the number of climactic changes attributable to CO2 has grown almost exponentially through the years, the one experiment that brought it all home was to show how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will simultaneously raise temperature (they say 2-8 degrees, I'm happy with 1) and also lower ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Supposedly it's been shown millions (or billions) of times and that's a big mea culpa on my part.

Show me the experiment and you'll have convinced me

Go!

Supposedly you're a rational human being who could be expected to operate a search engine all on your little lonesome.

Convince me.

Go!

You couldn't find it either.

That's what I thought

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

Crowdsourced crap science is still crap science.

Can you find an experiment that proves that CO2 does not cause any warming?

All hypothesis and observations show a link between warming and CO2.

Can you prove that CO2 has no involvement whatsoever in warming?

^ That's not science

 

[TheOldSchool]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

You didn't bother reading the experiment before posting, correct?

"Thousands of you took part in the world’s largest climate modelling experiment. Each person downloaded a computer model that used spare processing power to predict future climate."

Oops

Honestly I didn't think you'd bother to click the link. I certainly didn't think it would have any impact on your opinion. Why did you bother to click on it? You had to have known you wouldn't have given a fuck no matter what it said?

It really doesn't matter though. One day climate change, man-made or not, will be a problem. And because the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world are working on it I'm confident that humanity will survive.

Funny post though

 

[daveman]

Can you find an experiment that proves that CO2 does not cause any warming?

All hypothesis and observations show a link between warming and CO2.

Can you prove that CO2 has no involvement whatsoever in warming?

Wow. You know nothing about science, do you?

Ya bro. Science is gay man.

Ummm...no. It's just you can't prove a negative.

Seriously. Look it up. I won't even send you to any websites, so you can't claim bias.

 

[mamooth]

It's just you can't prove a negative.

Of course you can. Proving "There is no elephant in my living room" is trivial.

Seriously. Look it up.

Seriously, logic is just one of the many things you fail at. No wonder you fall so hard for the denier scams. You just don't have any intellectual defenses against them.

 

[Crick]

Bingo.

 

[Crick]

Supposedly you're a rational human being who could be expected to operate a search engine all on your little lonesome.

Convince me.

Go!

Odd...Google doesn't turn up any such experiment.

Well, I guess I was wrong. You DON'T know how to operate Google.

 

[indiajo]

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

Crowdsourced crap science is still crap science.

Can you find an experiment that proves that CO2 does not cause any warming?

All hypothesis and observations show a link between warming and CO2.

Can you prove that CO2 has no involvement whatsoever in warming?

1. There are no such experiments. Why? Because the earth with its atmosphere ist not a greenhouse. The processes with a greenhouse are completely different from atmospheric conditions, and it was the biggest magic trick of the climate hippocrits to introduce this expression. The atmosphere is an open system, which by itself is the obstacle to an experiment that shows absorption, defined energy transmission and so forth.
A greenhouse operates like a car with a black dashboard, the sunrays are absorbed by the material and heat it up physically (brown molecular mivement), which leads also to a certain amount of infrared radiation of a wavelength that cannot pass the glass of the car windows. The atmosphere in the car plays no role in that, same with the greenhouse.
This problem occurs with any experiment in a closed system to show the absorption of radiation by CO2 that should lead to a temperature raise in the system. You always check a "greenhouse effect" not the atmospheric conditions.

2. you can of course measure the absorption of certain wavelength bands along with their before determined energy content by CO2. Actually I did this some time ago with an infrared spectrometer I had in the lab for a different purpose.
The most fascinating effect of that was, that it showed reproducable peaks for CO2 and H2O during calibrating and eliminating this "zero peaks" for our actual testes.
Astonishing was, that if you breathed over the measuring head it went through the roof with H2O, which is to be expected, but stayed pretty constant with the value for CO2. If you know that you breath out with a content of approximately 4% CO2, I thought to see at least something compared to the normal CO2 concentration of 0,04%. This is a factor of 100. The raise in air mloisture was with a factor of 2 or 3 at the best.
Now this confirms, admittedly not scientifcally sound and peer reviewed, but as thumb figure that the capacity for CO2 absorption of certain wavelenghts of sunrays is pretty much saturated.

3. Of course CO2 has an effect in the retention of energy in the atmosphere that leads to the difference in temperature to a theoretical black body.
Which would be around -15°C, whilst we have around +15°C. But this effect is limited to its ability of absorprion, which again is limited by the energy content of the related wavelenght bands.
This is completely different with H2O. Sucks up almost everything and gets hot. That's why microvave ovens work, and why you can swim in a cold lake after 3 days summer sun when its surface layers reach bathtube temperatures..
Now, H2O is not measured as a trace gas with 0,04%, but as humidity with for example 12 Gramm H2O per m³ air at 20°C and 70% relative moisture, means approximately 1% in weight. Please refer to the appropriate table sheets for varous conditions, water is a tricky substance.

4. Out of 3, we have 50 times the water in the air compared to CO2, plus minus whatever depending on temperature and weather, which is a substance that absorbes a crazy amount more energy out of radiation as the CO2 does.
If we only take the factor fifty as a thimb figure, the water is responsible for 98% of the temperature raise from the black body to +15%C in the atmosphere.
Means CO2 takes on 30/100*2= 0,6°C. Today, in total.
Again, this is not science and pure physics, this is a view on the matter an engineer takes to get an impression of the orders of magnitude.

5. Further, the absorbed energy does not stay in this molecules. It leads to higher temperature of the molecule (brown movement) as well as emitting radiation itself in different wavelengths.
And here it becomes very complicated, and there is no realistic model what happens.
Simply because we cannot trace this different interactions between the molecules, and there is little basic experimentation which interaction leads to what.
All the nice pictures of energy balances you seeare just that. Overall assumptions, based on historic values compared to actual values and out of that forecasted.
There are some mot parameters, not making the case easier. For example the thermal capacity of the atmosphere, variyng extremely with density, moisture, temperature and so on.

6. This again correlates with the moisture effect. The absolute moisture, i.e. water content in weight, raises with higher temperature and density. Can raise, depending on the weather, again. Also the thermal capacity, which is the main parameter of storing energy. That's why it is warmer in low regions, and colder if you climb up on 2000 meters. Simple. And we have of course atmospheric layers and so on.

7. Resume:
Infrared radiation is not blocked by the CO2 of escaping to the universe, some small bands are absorbed and re emitted, maybe several times through other moleculed like water or else, and then leave. Means we have a delay in radiation from the earth, but no real retention.
This leads of course to a warming effect, depending again on thermal capacity with all its adjourning parameters. A steady state process.
But, we are talking about a trace gas that is in earth history only responsible for a tiny fraction of the warming as a whole, we are talking about a raise of ten or 20% of this tiny effect and we have still not considered that its absorption capacity is used up, because there is no more energy in the respective bandwiths to absorb.

So what we do by raising the CO2 content is turning a very little screw at the feeding of the steady state process, and we have no detailed informaton how and how much this influences rthe other feeding parameters.
(When its warmer the air moisture raise > more clouds > more reflection in the outer atmosphere and so on)
Well, what we know is that this is a self regulating system. It works since billions of years, with CO2 contents up to 3000 ppm, ice ages and warm periods, not to talk about volcanos and asteroid impacts.

We should surely avoid to blow up all carbon fuels in two generations (ironically, this was once abundant vegetation that took huge CO2 contents out of the atmosphere), but there is no reason for panic and wasting giant amounts of productivity into absolutely senseless climate change projects, ruining the economies which are our only source to cope with the surprises mother earth has yet in store for us.

 

[Politico]

You need an experiment to prove the climate changes? Sorry to hear that Frank.